Post navigation

Boycott the United Nations!

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The United Nation’sSecretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Wilder’s movie Fitna as “offensively anti-Islamic,” and said that “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.” Does that mean that the UN is now going to ban the Koran, which does both? As Robert Spencer commented, “What exactly is ‘hate speech’ about quoting Qur’an verses and then showing Muslim preachers using those verses to exhort people to commit acts of violence, as well as violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by those verses and others?”

Earlier in March, the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Muslim countries, passed a resolution saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it. The only religion specified is Islam. The document was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the largest voting bloc at the UN, sponsored by Saudi money.

I have been saying for a long time that trying to export “democracy” to Islamic countries is pointless. Islam can be compatible with “democracy” in the limited sense of voting rights and majority rule, but this has never automatically implied individual liberty. (See my online booklet Is Islam Compatible With Democracy?)

It’s a sick joke that American soldiers are bleeding literally and American taxpayers financially to export “democracy” to Iraq while Muslims are exporting sharia to us. Freedom is free speech, that’s the simplest, and maybe the truest, definition of it. Muslims are trying to use the UN to limit free speech across the world, which basically means putting the entire world under Islamic rule.

Increasingly, it is turning into an outright enemy, an enemy funded by us but used to attack us. I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m goddam tired of sponsoring enemies, at home and abroad. I’m all for boycotting the UN and making it truly irrelevant by bleeding it dry for funds and ultimately withdrawing from it.

Even if we are in a weak phase, which we are, we are still a civilization of vastly superior resources. Muslims have lots of oil and lots of babies and lots of aggression, but that’s all they have. Otherwise, they’re a spectacular failure. We need them for very little. They need us for virtually everything. Their greatest flaw is their arrogance. Muslims are arrogant losers.

We should exploit that. We should separate ourselves from the Islamic world as much as possible. They will suffer far more from this than we will. We can start by boycotting the UN, which is now little more than a tool for global sharia, and the Arab Muslims of the West Bank and Gaza, who reinvented themselves as “Palestinians” and started whining at the UN after the Israelis kicked their collective behinds in 1967.

I notice former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad calls upon Muslims worldwide to boycott Dutch products. I’m all for boycotts of and by Muslims. The more, the merrier. In case somebody forgot, Mr. Mahathir held the notorious speech at the OIC conference in 2003, where he said that the Jews rule the world by proxy and that Muslims must unite to achieve a final victory over them. Not everybody remembers that he also boasted about the age when”Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage.”

Somebody should remind him that the so-called “golden age” of Islam was a result of a still-majority or near-majority non-Muslim population. As soon as that majority declined, due to harassment and discrimination, the Islamic world never recovered. Malaysia is sometimes portrayed as an economically successful Muslim nation, but that is because it only recently became majority Muslim and still has a large Chinese, Indian and other non-Muslim minority. Since Islam is becoming more aggressive and Muslims increase discrimination of non-Muslims, infidels will leave, and Malaysia will gradually be reduced to just another failed sharia state.

We should all be happy if Muslims boycott us. When they feel so unwelcome that they stop coming to our countries, we will be making progress.

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus also contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds: Following medieval religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilization. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivized states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognizing by this constant infusion of aid.

I’m advocating isolating the Islamic world, not the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims and start reaching out to non-Muslims.

For Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to dismantle the European Union in its present form, and regain national control over our borders and our legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed as an organization, and so heavily infiltrated by Eurabian and pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged, and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel.

Seaborne believes that many people are underestimating the strength of Islam. Perhaps, but some observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Seaborne himself, may be overestimating it. They overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don’t underestimate your enemy. Muslims should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this “we’re all doomed and have already lost” theme is overblown.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world. I’m not saying that containment is all that we will ever need to do, but it is the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the darkest side of globalization, will trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to avoid this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of such technology.

We should restrain their ability to hurt us physically. We can’t prevent it completely, but we should limit it as much as possible. Muslims try to wear us down through terrorism. They should be worn down through mockery and criticism. We should also make clear that for every Islamic terror attack we will increase these efforts, which Muslims fear more than our weapons. It’s the new balance of terror.

Dr Koenraad Elst, one of Belgium’s best orientalists, thinks “Islam is in decline, despite its impressive demographic and military surge” — which according to Dr Elst is merely a “last upheaval.” He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority religion in Europe before collapsing.

Dalrymple is probably correct when he says that Islam is an “all or nothing” religion which cannot be secularized. The future may not belong to Islam, as Mark Steyn suggests. It is conceivable that Islam in some generations will cease to be a global force of any significance, but in the meantime it will be a constant source of danger to its neighbors, from Europe through India to Southeast Asia. The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try to prevent this from happening.

Historian David Littman is a representative to the United Nations (Geneva) of the Association for World Education. He has spent years tracking the rise of Islamic influence at the UN. According to him, “In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations.” “As a result, non-diplomatic terms such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘defamation of Islam’ have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari’a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam.”

I do not have all the answers to how such a post-UN world will be like. The most important principle at this point is to isolate and contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have direct influence over our policies, which they partly do have through the UN. Is it unrealistic to talk about the collapse of the EU and the UN? I don’t know. The UN was created in the aftermath of WW2. It survived the Cold War, but now we are rapidly entering into a new world war. My bet is that we will see huge changes in world affairs in the near future, at least as large as those which laid the foundations for the UN to begin with. Whatever usefulness the UN may have had was lost decades ago. It is today of little use to us, but of significant use to our enemies. The time has come to say farewell to the United Nations.

13 thoughts on “Boycott the United Nations!”

Long live Al-Qaeda. May they all live long and healthy lives. May they all live to be 100. I dont want them to lose thier eyesight, or thier hearing, or thier mental faculties in any way. I want them perfectly healthy, and I want them to live very long lives.

And I especially dont want to kill Bin Laden anymore. I want him to live forever. Preferably it would be in my living room, tied to a chair, where I could really enjoy his company. Obviously, thats not going to happen, but it doesnt matter, because the entire planet will soon be an unescapable prison of excruciating psychological torture, that enlightened men cannot even fathom.

I dont want to kill anymore Terrorists, Jihadists, or any Muslims at all. It is an inefficient use of time and resources. There are about a Billion Muslims, they will never run out of ‘wingnuts’ and ‘units gone bad’ that read the Koran and follow some of its nastier instructions. Its already been going on for 1300 years.

I also want the soldiers out of Iraq, every single last one, and bring back every piece of equipment too, especially the Helicopters! I want all the soldiers out of Afgfhanistan too. I want all American Troops out of all 57 Muslim Countries that belong to the Organization of Islamic Countries.

I would strongly suggest that Civilians leave these countries, but I am not going to twist the arm of an American man conducting business in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They are big boys, very worldly, very sophisticated, very smart. Considering what is coming, I think for thier own safety they should come home, but what can you do? This is a free country.

The Jihadists love death. Islam glorifies death. The Koran promises massive rewards for the Martyr. Martyrdom is the goal of the Jihadist.(Islamic Martyrdom means dying while killing Infidels as opposed to Christian Martyrdom which means dying for your belief in Christ). How is killing them punishing them? How is killing them any kind of deterrent? How is killing them going to bring things to an end? It will not. There will be evermore, just like the Zombies in the Movies, for another 1300 years!

How do you deter, impede, damage, or defeat an enemy that embraces death? An enemy that is not motivated by the love of life? Is killing them the worst thing you can do to them? Is killing any Muslim going to keep others from picking up the Koran in 10 years, seeing Commands to kill Infidels, and then carrying them out? How do you keep a Billion Muslims from becoming Jihadists in the Future? Through the threat of killing them? The threat of making them I slamicMartyrs?

It is not necessary to physically attack ANY Muslim in ANY way, and that includes Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and ALL Jihadists. It is a WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES. I would from this day forward say that we not even so much as slap a Muslim Terrorist in the face. Although I would tie them all to a chair to make sure they don’y miss whay is undoubtedly coming thier way.

Bin Laden recently said in one of his home movies that the Mohammed Cartoons from Denmark were so insulting and outrageous that he considered it WORSE than the killing of non-combatant Iraqi Civilians by American Soldiers. Thats Interesting.

ALL 57 Members of the Organization of Islamic States are at the United Nations furiously working to impose “Blasphemy Laws” on the entire world because someone mocked Mohammed in a cartoon. The Western concept of Freedom of Speech is too much for them. Thats interesting.

Muslim organizations all over the World, including countless organizations that are constantly referred to as “moderate” in the American Media, are trying to effect change to the Free Speech Laws of Western Countries because of the “hate” and “bigotry” that mocking Mohammed must be. Apparently “blasphemy” (its only blasphemy if you’re a Muslim) and questioning the Koran are a Soft Underbelly. Thats Interesting.

What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? Whats the big deal about a cartoon?

Is it the Cartoon, or is it what may come afterwards? What if someone mocks more than just Mohammed’s Turban? What if someone did more than drawing a cartoon. What if someone went on to mock something Mohammed said? What if things spun completely out of control, and people started going through the Koran, and pointing out all the mistakes, like when Mohammed says that the earth is flat, would that make Mohammed look like a hoax and a fool? Would that make many people renounce Islam? What if people everywhere started making Flat Earth jokes and laughing? How would all this make Bin Laden feel?

What? The Saudi Royal Family? Moderate Muslims? Muslim Soccer moms? They would all have thier feelings hurt? Would thier feelings be hurt more or less than Cindy Sheehan’s? Would they ever feel as bad as any American who lost a family member to Islam since 9/11? Choosing between those two is only difficult for an Extremely Stupid Politically Correct Multicultural Western Sociopath Asshole. Case closed.

The only “attacks” necessary are on Islam itself. Attack the History of Mohammeds life, and his barbaric acts, attack the Mistakes in the Koran, attack the Supremacy in Islam, attack the Death-Cult attributes of Islam, attack the Ignorance and Primitiveness of Islam, the Koran and Mohammed. I mean, its not like we have to make anything up, not even the child molesting or the beheadings or the wife beatings.

Maybe it will only happen after a city gets nuked, or after Civil War begins in the Netherlands, or maybe after some Muslims bum-rush an armory in Paris, and the vast majority of Americans suddenly volunteer to give up some REAL Civil Liberties. However it comes to be, it is inevitable that the U.S. will eventually leave the Politically Correct, Multicultural Stooge Festival that is Western Civilization behind, and use the full weight and power of the United States Governement, its Institutions, and its Media to shine the Truth on Islam.

Muslims worldwide will first and foremost…riot, but Americans wont be there anyway. American Businessmen and Lawyers are still there you say? They were warned, and besides, what exactly were they doing there anyway? Eventually through a sustained effort Islam will be weakened, then it will experience an exodus, then another exodus, and another, and finally the 7th Century Arab Death Cult will collapse like Communism. This is worse than death to the Jihadists. It will psychologically destroy them.

Oil Supply? You mean in a moment of desperation the Middle East may refuse to supply the West with oil, and bankrupt Europe, throwing America into a Depression? Well…I said pull the soldiers out of Islamic Civilization. I never said anything about scrapping our Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and our Navy. It wouldnt take that many men to appropriate the oil fields from a nonexistent Saudi Military for as long as necessary. We’ll give free oil to the Ronald McDonald House, Jerry’s Kidz, and the Boy Scouts and end up looking kinda sweet.

This is the way to deal with Jihadists, their violence inciting Koran, and thier mentally deranged Prophet. Keep Muslims Alive – Assassinate Mohammed. The First US President that figures that out, will be bigger than Ghandi, bigger than Reagan, bigger than Ron Jeremy.

Pick up a Koran today, throw it in the toilet, or use it for target practice, or as a coaster for your Beer, or as a very simple Doormat to wipe the dog-poop off, take a picture, put it on YouTube, and welcome to the Resistance. Peaceful Means, Nuke-tipped Missiles, makes no real difference to me, I’m just trying to be nice.

I was horrified to learn that many Arab (i.e. Islamic) words have crept into our English language. We can fight back by purging our language of words like algebra, zenith, sugar, cotton and many others. How can we fight back if the very words out of our mouths are tainted by association with this foul creed?

We should produce some “Boycott UN” stickers. Or at least a PDF that makes it easy to print your own. While we have more ugent stuff at hand, putting that idea in the bottom of people’s minds now just might benefit us in the future.

Since the UN with its foolish Korean Muslim appeaser is now just another vehicle to invoke parts of sharia law on non-Muslim countries, it’s time for western democracies and other sympathetic democracies (India?) to pull out. Let the Islamic rump and their supporters (losers all) set up shop in their own sphere. Darfur would be good, where they get to experience the hell hole that all Islamic states create.

Ed may be on to something if Iraq goes bad. It was a noble effort, the idea of making a key Islamic state in the Mid-East democratic and capitalist, hoping prosperity and consumerism would blunt war-like hostility and for a domino effect in neighboring states but now that we have learned more about Muslims, Islam and Islamic law, one almost certainly doomed to failure.

You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and the ascendant Muslim mentality is a sow’s ear. For 1400 years they’ve clung to an unchanged and unchangeable belief system that combined with modernity gives off toxic fumes overwhelming us all. The Arab brand of Islam which is dominant creates shirkers, not workers, who prefer “fighting” no matter how ineffectually to actually doing an honest day’s work. They are destroyers, not builders. Look at the Palestinians as a case in point. Islam creates cesspools with such poor living conditions and has a brainwashing component so impervious even to western education that there is a never-ending supply of uneducated and/or fanatic young men (and women for that matter) who believe they’ll be better off in the big Brothel in the Sky and that suicide bombing is the golden key.

Ed’s right. Killing them just gives them what they want, one of two first prizes. The other first prize is their parasitic fantasy of lording it like kings of the universe over westerners as slaves, recreating the “glory days” of Islam. There is clearly no joy in living freely in Western countries without Muslim supremacy as there is no significant moderate movement of Muslims trying to conserve their enviable lifestyle here by standing up for the West. Can they really be so stupid as to think they can have the good life here without Westerners running things? If not, they are apparently willing to take a big drop in standard of living for the pleasure of being part of the World S–t Caliphate and are colonists for that Caliphate.

The only Islamic country that was temporarily wrested out of its barbaric swoon was Turkey under strongman (not Democrat) Kemal Ataturk who separated mosque and state, making the government secular with a strong military committed to retaining secularism. Musharraf in Pakistan was following this model somewhat but is out on his ear now. As in Pakistan, democracy in Turkey is doing nothing but undermining its progress. Both countries are being voted back into the Islamic dark ages election by election until the army loses its ability to control the Islamists and that final election choosing sharia as law of yet another Crapistan.

Ed’s idea of ridiculing Islam and its cult believers is a good one providing leftist political correctness can be erased so there’s a tsunami of ridicule. While it’s just a drop here and a drop there, brave resisters can be picked off one by one by Muslims. But just as we can’t kill a billion of them, they can’t kill all of us if we start actively resisting/cartooning/objecting to every Muslim demand as out of bounds in our secular states.

That’s definitely the way to go. Every time they dare open their mouths about their religion being “disrespected”, they should be slapped in the face with all the victims their farce of a religion has disrespected by KILLING them, including nuns and priests.

The UN is really… garbage. I mean, take that human rights council and their latest decision. Muslim nations on the human rights council? That’s a joke, right? I mean, that’s like giving Arafat the Nobel peace price… who’d do such a stupid… Oh wait, never mind.

It’s a sick joke that American soldiers are bleeding literally and American taxpayers financially to export “democracy” to Iraq while Muslims are exporting sharia to us.

Well, that’s the idiocy of Neoconservatism expressed in a single sentence. John McCain is willing to continue the policy.

Seaborne believes that many people are underestimating the strength of Islam. Perhaps, but some observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Seaborne himself, may be overestimating it. They overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don’t underestimate your enemy. Muslims should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this “we’re all doomed and have already lost” theme is overblown.

Steyn is a neocon and like the lot of them, has no real love for Europe and does not care for its preservation. In fact, the idea of Europe’s demise seems to give him some perverse satisfaction.

You say that English is filled with Arabic words? What? Well, I am Portuguese, we have been (in the South) under muslim/Arabic control for 550 years, the Spaniards for 800 years. We have a lot of Arab words, I mean, some 75 to 85% of our vocabullary is Latin, 10% modern estrangeirisms (mainly from English and French) and about 5% are Arabic loan words.

Our word for “cotton” is indeed of Arabic origin. It is Al-godão (algodão). Algarve, for instance, derives from Al Garbh wich derives from Al Garbh Al Andaluz.Al Garbh means “The West” in Arabic. We have many other words especially in agricultural terms (these are quiet interesting once that in the North, many terms are of Germanic origin whereas in the South other terms are of Arabic origin) and I can tell you, English has a minimum of Arabic words.Some 33% of our words started in “al” are of Arab origin.

laine wrote, “Can they really be so stupid as to think they can have the good life here without Westerners running things?” Well, yeah. In fact, they share that particular stupidity with America’s ruling class, and many ordinary Americans. Though our Census Bureau predicts that European-derived Americans will become a minority around mid century, no one seems particularly upset about it.

I disagree with laine and Ed on the subject of killing Muslims. For people who want to become martyrs, they’re awfully prolific. A great many soldiers in Saddam’s army preferred surrender. I suspect that only a small minority of Muslims wish to immolate themselves. If we started killing Muslims in large numbers with Western efficiency, we’d soon be killing members of the majority that would rather avoid martyrdom.

As for boycotting the UN, that’s a great idea. Unfortunately, it must be executed by national governments to be effective. I doubt that the idea could be sold to George W. “Religion of Peace” Bush, and I’m certain that it can’t be sold to his successor, Osama Obama.

They’ve passsed a resolution that ‘calls on states to not resort to racial, ethnic or religious profiling while countering terrorism’. (‘Ethinic profiling’… a novelty and an interesting term, which runs both ways…) So, why are we being denied our freedom of speech? Doesn’t this run contrary to what the UN should stand for? In fact, their comments regarding Fitna weren’t enlightening either. Why should it, or why were other works, such as ‘Satanic Verses’ censored? Under the veil of a coward’s argument (and a weak and just so low one at that) protected by accusing, and labelling, people who want to preserve their own language, traditions and culture (ie, the Danish cartoonist)’racist’, the UN is making it a socially implicit norm that people cannot speak OPENLY. It isn’t serving it’s function; it’s not protecting my interests, but someone else’s, so what is its purposes? Essentially, by negating the liberal tradition of open and free dialogue, where can we expect to generate intellectual progress? This is not racism; it is my Human Rights that are being infringed upon when I, as a woman, cannot enjoy my youth and beauty and wear what I want, for example, or am negated the right to my own language or culture. This is my concern. I would like my concern to be voiced to the UN- maybe an anonymous petition to the UN- perhaps against the cessation of state’s sovereignty? Because by passing such a resolution, they are encouraging a demise in Women’s rights, in Human Rights and they are changing the face of the internationla community in such a way that impedes state and individual liberty.

This is how I’d put words into action and now I’m going to approach this problem differently; I’m going to continue to read UN resolutions, so till next time, vi sees, ciao